***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (8 Viewers)

[Henry Ford]

The intelligence agencies have a clear animus toward the President, and by the looks of it are trying to remove him from office again.  Not for his most abhorrent policies which have made the world a more dangerous and destructive place, which they help him with and engage in themselves, but for an infraction that seems strangely oblique and inconsequential compared to everything else.  Yes, I have a problem with that.  

Is it worth putting his ability to conduct policy with other foreign heads of state on blast and undermining the confidence of sensitive talks between the President and other countries?  For mentioning an investigation into a former government official that overthrew a sovereign government in Ukraine?  I don't think it is.  You disagree of course, and that's fine.  

Oh, come, now. You're talking about agencies that he has appointed the heads of.  For years.

 

[roadkill1292]

I don't really know how reliable the Daily Beast is, but it's reporting that more whistleblowers, encouraged by the actions of those before, are coming forward to drop dirt with Uncle Shifty.

 

[jamny]

Has it been made clear what firsthand knowledge the initial whistle blower has?

 

[TheMagus]

go ahead and argue that you are in favor of a) spying on the president, b) attempting to impeach the president in secret.  I'm listneing and so are a lot of voters.

wut?

Out of curiosity, what sources do you use for your news?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Has it been made clear what firsthand knowledge the initial whistle blower has?

I think it's in the report, but basically IIRC there's actually a checkbox in the form and the WB checked it, even though it's not even required.

 

[McJose]

(1)The intelligence agencies have a clear animus toward the President, (2) and by the looks of it are trying to remove him from office again. 

1. Because he is a huge liability towards the safety of our nation.  

2. At worst they are trying to protect our nation despite the moronic actions of POTUS.  If that leads to his removal, so be it.

 

[jamny]

I think it's in the report, but basically IIRC there's actually a checkbox in the form and the WB checked it, even though it's not even required.

To submit, there isn't, but isn't it required to escalate it? Just wondering if it was made clear what that first hand knowledge is?

 

[Don't Noonan]

Has it been made clear what firsthand knowledge the initial whistle blower has?

That he loves Biden and hates Trump.  That is it.

 

[Henry Ford]

i sure do.   The "whistleblower" rules were changed right before the media and democrats blew open the "whistleblower" story -  to allow the "whistleblower" process to report 2nd and 3rd hand information.   This rule was changed by the IC IG Atkinson and he has still not given a good answer as to "why".  Previously (forever) in order to qualify as a protected "whistleblower" you had to report 1st hand info.   

No.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/whistleblowers-firsthand-knowledge/

The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General [Michael] Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.

- ICIG's office

 

[Henry Ford]

To submit, there isn't, but isn't it required to escalate it? Just wondering if it was made clear what that first hand knowledge is?

Not from the original whistle blower.  The IG would look into it and need more information before escalation to DNI.  

 

[Don't Noonan]

you spelled wrong.

I am picturing the echo chamber on stage being pelted by peaches when this blows up in your faces yet again.  

 

[Mile High]

wut?

Out of curiosity, what sources do you use for your news?

Sources sounds like something the The King of Israel would say. 

 

[jamny]

Not from the original whistle blower.  The IG would look into it and need more information before escalation to DNI.  

But aren't they saying that none of this rule change conspiracy matters because the WB had first hand knowledge anyway?

 

[Skoo]

That he loves Biden and hates Trump.  That is it.

Might wanna dial it back a bit, an important part of the shtick is making people think you actually believe what you're saying.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

To submit, there isn't, but isn't it required to escalate it? Just wondering if it was made clear what that first hand knowledge is?

In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible.

- IC IG.

I think all that's required for escalation is that the complaint be urgent and credible.

 

[McJose]

Peaches

 

[Henry Ford]

But aren't they saying that none of this rule change conspiracy matters because the WB had first hand knowledge anyway?

That, too.  According to the inspector general.

 

[jamny]

That, too.  According to the inspector general.

So, that hasn't been made clear yet though? All I'm asking.

 

[timschochet]

a) thats nice

b) no, i'm not.   read a book

Hey @tommyboy just want to say it’s nice to have you back in the political debates. I rarely agree with your position, but I like how you never run away from a debate, and rarely if ever troll. Hopefully you’ll contribute on a regular basis. 

 

[jamny]

- IC IG.

I think all that's required for escalation is that the complaint be urgent and credible.

Right, I'm just asking if the first hand knowledge has been made public yet.

ICIG ICWSP Form 401, May 24, 2018: In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Right, I'm just asking if the first hand knowledge has been made public yet.

Yes, it's in the report. We know this was an officer/agent assigend to the NSC, so anything that an NSC personnel would know, he knows. That's personal knowledge.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But aren't they saying that none of this rule change conspiracy matters because the WB had first hand knowledge anyway?

I'm going from memory (having read the initial reporting on the whistleblower's report). I believe the first whistleblower had no firsthand knowledge. He made the report based on what multiple other people had told him. The second whistleblower apparently has firsthand knowledge of the July 25 call.

The reason the firsthand vs. secondhand knowledge doesn't matter is that everything in the first whistleblower's report turned out to be accurate based on documents released by the White House or on information that otherwise later became public.

"This information is secondhand" is an attack on its credibility. After the information is confirmed as correct, attacks on its credibility become moot.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Another way to look at is to see that saying 'I was present for such and such phone call' or 'NSA Bolton told me xyz on abc date' is tantamount to killing your anonymity.

 

[jamny]

I'm going from memory (having read the initial reporting on the whistleblower's report). I believe the first whistleblower had no firsthand knowledge. He made the report based on what multiple other people had told him. The second whistleblower apparently has firsthand information about the July 25 call.

The reason the fristhand vs. secondhand knowledge doesn't matter is that everything in the first whistleblower's report turned out to be accurate based on documents released by the White House and on information that became public.

"This information is secondhand" is an attack on its credibility. After the information is confirmed as correct, attacks on its credibility become moot.

Office of the ICIG, Sept. 30: As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute. Therefore, although the Complainant’s Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President’s July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations.

By the bolded, it seems that the first WB had first hand knowledge.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information.

The IG checked out the information in the report for himself before passing it along.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

By the bolded, it seems that the first WB had first hand knowledge.

Or the assertions were substantiated by the IG's efforts.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Office of the ICIG, Sept. 30: As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix.

Based on this, it appears that the first whistleblower had firsthand knowledge of some things, but not other things. (In particular, he did not have firsthand knowledge of the phone call. His statements about the call were based on what others told him.)

 

[jamny]

Or the assertions were substantiated by the IG's efforts.

OK, thanks. The wording was a bit confusing and I've been reading articles saying that the form change didn't matter since the first WB did have first hand knowledge. I was having trouble finding what that was but I guess he/she didn't.

Thanks  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

By the bolded, it seems that the first WB had first hand knowledge.

As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix.

- This is the direct knowledge that the IC / WBer is referring to.

 

[Henry Ford]

So, that hasn't been made clear yet though? All I'm asking.

It's not been made clear what exactly is being referred to or what the standard of "first hand information" really is.

For instance, if Trump walked up to you and told you he had just murdered someone, do you have first hand information to relay to the inspector general? The whistleblower relayed a number of facts in the complaint in which white house administrators personally told him or stated in public things they had done in furtherance of this set of possible crimes.

However, the most likely first hand information in my opinion is the change in policy regarding U.S. assistance toward Ukraine, which he likely experienced first hand and received communication about in his official capacity..

 

[timschochet]

@tommyboy and others with his POV in the media are offering process arguments: the President should be able to question his accusers, there was no vote for an impeachment inquiry, the phone call never should have been listened to in the first place, etc. 

None of these arguments, from what I am able to understand as a layman, have any legal legitimacy, though as I have stated in the past the failure of a vote may have an effect on public opinion. But more importantly, none of them touch on the main issue of the phone conversation and whether or not Trump committed an impeachable offense. In fact these arguments seem to be an evasion of that issue because very few Trump defenders want tackle it. The two most common defenses have been Trump did nothing wrong, (I think of this as the “Don’t Noonan Defense”) or Trump did something wrong but it doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense (I think of this as the “Susan Collins Defense”; she hasn’t said this but eventually she will.) In neither case is any explanation offered for making such a determination. 

A third defense was offered this morning by the completely disreputable Alan Dershowitz: 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump/ar-AAIxBpg

I’ll let you read it for yourself but the gist is that it doesn’t matter what Trump did on that phone call because he can do whatever he wants. Dershowitz makes the spurious claim that every President subverts foreign policy to his personal interest; he offers no examples. 

No wonder they attack the process; it’s all they really have. 

 

[jamny]

- This is the direct knowledge that the IC / WBer is referring to.

Would access to the transcript be considered first hand knowledge?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Would access to the transcript be considered first hand knowledge?

I think it would be. But the first whistleblower explicitly said that he didn't have access to the transcript.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Would access to the transcript be considered first hand knowledge?

It says information, sources, and conduct, not just the transcript.

 

[apalmer]

@tommyboy and others with his POV in the media are offering process arguments: the President should be able to question his accusers, there was no vote for an impeachment inquiry, the phone call never should have been listened to in the first place, etc. 

None of these arguments, from what I am able to understand as a layman, have any legal legitimacy, though as I have stated in the past the failure of a vote may have an effect on public opinion. But more importantly, none of them touch on the main issue of the phone conversation and whether or not Trump committed an impeachable offense. In fact these arguments seem to be an evasion of that issue because very few Trump defenders want tackle it. The two most common defenses have been Trump did nothing wrong, (I think of this as the “Don’t Noonan Defense”) or Trump did something wrong but it doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense (I think of this as the “Susan Collins Defense”; she hasn’t said this but eventually she will.) In neither case is any explanation offered for making such a determination. 

A third defense was offered this morning by the completely disreputable Alan Dershowitz: 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump/ar-AAIxBpg

I’ll let you read it for yourself but the gist is that it doesn’t matter what Trump did on that phone call because he can do whatever he wants. Dershowitz makes the spurious claim that every President subverts foreign policy to his personal interest; he offers no examples. 

No wonder they attack the process; it’s all they really have. 

Well, he's right that Hamilton wouldn't impeach Trump, but that's mostly because Hamilton has been dead for over 200 years. He recognizes that Hamilton said impeachment was for “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself”, but then argues that conducting foreign policy for personal gain doesn't abuse or violate the public trust. Really? That's almost the definition of abusing and violating the public trust!

 

[timschochet]

Well, he's right that Hamilton wouldn't impeach Trump, but that's mostly because Hamilton has been dead for over 200 years. He recognizes that Hamilton said impeachment was for “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself”, but then argues that conducting foreign policy for personal gain doesn't abuse or violate the public trust. Really? That's almost the definition of abusing and violating the public trust!

Yeah and did you also notice that the sentence about foreign policy is never followed up with an explanation as to why this isn’t an impeachable offense, other than “everybody does it”, which I strongly challenge (and again he offers no examples.) All that buildup but you have to get to late in the article before he offers that argument which is really his only argument. 

Thats why I wrote that Dershowitz has become disreputable. It’s really a shame. 

 

[Snorkelson]

go ahead and argue that you are in favor of a) spying on the president, b) attempting to impeach the president in secret.  I'm listneing and so are a lot of voters.

Wtf are you talking about? The released the call, which corroborated the whistleblowers account. There isn’t any spying, just stupid people doing shady stuff and being really bad at covering it up. There is no secret impeachment, I mean, we all have heard about it. We are hearing a lot of the details. Are you hung up on the fact that they haven’t voted and sent it to the senate? I’m sure trump supporters would love seeing this buried by McConnell before more and more evidence comes out. 

 

[jamny]

Can the House vote to impeach without ever having voted for an impeachment inquiry?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can the House vote to impeach without ever having voted for an impeachment inquiry?

Yes. - Clinton and Nixon had votes on an inquiry but Johnson did not. It's not a requirement. The Constitution just says the House has "sole power" to impeach. Rules are totally up to them.

 

[jamny]

Yes. - Clinton and Nixon had votes on an inquiry but Johnson did not. It's not a requirement. The Constitution just says the House has "sole power" to impeach. Rules are totally up to them.

Thanks...

Found this too for more info

 

[hagmania]

Stupid Watergate II: The Stupidest Watergate 

I think you're looking for Election Boogaloo

 

[Christo]

Mike Pompeo’s senior advisor resigns

They’re dropping like flies.  If I’ve learned anything in life, it’s that you don’t want to be the last one out the door in this kind of situation.  Will be interesting to see who’s left to shut off the lights. 

Wow, this isn't some flunkie, yes-man that was brought in by the administration:

The adviser, Michael McKinley, had been a diplomat for over three decades and served as ambassador to Peru, Colombia, Afghanistan and, most recently, Brazil until he was appointed to his advising role in May 2018.

He's someone who's dedicated his professional life to US foreign relations.

 

[urbanhack]

Wow, this isn't some flunkie, yes-man that was brought in by the administration:

The adviser, Michael McKinley, had been a diplomat for over three decades and served as ambassador to Peru, Colombia, Afghanistan and, most recently, Brazil until he was appointed to his advising role in May 2018.

He's someone who's dedicated his professional life to US foreign relations.

but he probably voted Dem and gave Hillary $100 back in 2015 or something like that.   

 

[apalmer]

but he probably voted Dem and gave Hillary $100 back in 2015 or something like that.   

No, but his brother-in-law's uncle voted for Jimmy Carter, so he's obviously a partisan hack.

 

[Christo]

because in our country, even the president is allowed due process in the inquiry process.   No impeachment has ever been done in secret without due process.   

due process doesn't stop because Pelosi or Schiff say so.

Link? Cite? Give us anything that supports this ridiculous assertion.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

It's in the Constitution. The Constitution of America.

I'd bet a decent amount of money that exact conversation has happened in the Oval Office in the past 5 days.

 

[Sheriff Bart]

I'd bet a decent amount of money that exact conversation has happened in the Oval Office in the past 5 days.

Like this? 

"I  might have handed him 10 bucks [and said,] ‘I definitely want your attorney-client privilege on this,’ ” Hannity told listeners Monday afternoon. “Something like that.

 

[Christo]

i sure do.   The "whistleblower" rules were changed right before the media and democrats blew open the "whistleblower" story -  to allow the "whistleblower" process to report 2nd and 3rd hand information.   This rule was changed by the IC IG Atkinson and he has still not given a good answer as to "why".  Previously (forever) in order to qualify as a protected "whistleblower" you had to report 1st hand info.    check one

Adam Schiff denied that he had had contact with the 'whistleblower" prior to the initial reports in the media a month ago. Turns out he lied about that and had been in contact with the "whistleblower"  since early August.  He and his office coordinated with the whistleblower how to proceed with his 2nd and 3rd hand info.

Then the the dems had a meeting where Pelosi emerges from the meeting and announces "we starting an impeachment inquiry" as if she alone has that power.  She doesn't.  She then gives the lead role in that "inquiry" to the same Adam Schiff that lied about his coordination with the alleged "whistlblower" who, remember, is a hearsay witness at this point and wouldnt be protected by any legal whistlblower statute had not the IC IG changed and backdated the requirements in september right before the story broke.

Now Schiff is having hearings in SCIF rooms within congress, and they are calling this "an impeachment inquiry"

In reality  a) no vote on impeachment as in all previous impeachments and b) its all super secret so don't worry about any thing.  Orange man bad.

keep up the good work, the country is going to punish the Democrat party for a generation over this.  

 

[roadkill1292]

Super-secret, Christo. It's no laughing matter.

 

[Daywalker]

Shamed our military.  Attacked our intelligence agencies.  Destroyed our diplomatic forces.

Nice.